VIRTUAL REALITY ENHANCES STUDENT’S ACHIEVEMENT IN BIOLOGY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH INTERACTIVE WHITEBOARDS AND TRADITIONAL METHODS

Nader Neiroukh; Nardin Hamad; Abdalkarim Ayyoub

doi:10.22437/jiituj.v9i4.43935

Authors

Nader Neiroukh An-Najah National University https://orcid.org/0009-0005-4966-7855
Nardin Hamad An-Najah National University https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0038-4405
Abdalkarim Ayyoub An-Najah National University https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9111-4465

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22437/jiituj.v9i4.43935

Keywords:

Achievement, Active Learning, Engagement, Immersion, Interactive Methods

Abstract

Studies of immersive technologies as transformative tools for the teaching of science are on the rise but very few empirical studies have been done to compare immersive to semi-immersive and traditional methods. The purpose of the current study was to analyse the effects of three different levels of immersion-virtual reality (VR), interactive whiteboards (IWB) and traditional teaching-on tenth-grade students’ biology achievement in the topic of cell division. A quasi-experimental design of teaching that had three groups (VR group, n = 72; IWB group, n = 58; control group, n = 64) was used. The same qualified biology teacher taught all three groups, using semi-immersive, fully immersive, and traditional teaching through nine teaching sessions. An achievement test (validated for content reliability) was given as a pretest and a post-test. The pretest established the groups equivalently; and the post-test measured student learning gains since the three teaching methods could count for their test scores. ANCOVA results revealed that there were statistically significant differences in the groups’ achievements. The VR group scores were the highest and the IWB group, the second highest-while the control group received the lowest post-test scores. The results suggest that more immersive teaching effects positively aided learning comprehension of abstract biological processes like cell division. The significance of the study was its direct comparison of fully immersive, semi-immersive and traditional teaching of the topic, providing practical implications for integrating VR into science classrooms to enhance students’ comprehension of abstract biological processes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Nader Neiroukh, An-Najah National University

Faculty of Humanities and Educational Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine

Nardin Hamad, An-Najah National University

Faculty of Humanities and Educational Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine

Abdalkarim Ayyoub, An-Najah National University

Faculty of Humanities and Educational Sciences, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine

References

Akgün, M., & Atici, B. (2022). The effects of immersive virtual reality environments on students’ academic achievement: A Meta-analytical and Meta-thematic study. Participatory Educational Research, 9(3), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.22.57.9.3.

Alneyadi, S., Abulibdeh, E., & Wardat, Y. (2023). The impact of digital environment vs. traditional method on literacy skills; reading and writing of emirati fourth graders. Sustainability, 15(4), 3418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043418.

Asmaningrum, H. P., Gleko, A. E., Sathasivam, R. V., & Sumanik, N. B. (2025). Indigenous musical instruments as Ethno-STEM catalysts for enhancing scientific literacy through cultural integration. Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE), 6(3), 874-889. https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v6i3.1744.

Behmanesh, F., Bakouei, F., Nikpour, M., & Parvaneh, M. (2022). Comparing the effects of traditional teaching and flipped classroom methods on midwifery students’ practical learning: The embedded mixed method. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27(2), 599–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09478-y.

Bucea-Manea-Țoniş, R., Bucea-Manea-Țoniş, R., Simion, V. E., Ilic, D., Braicu, C., & Manea, N. (2020). Sustainability in higher education: The relationship between Work-Life balance and XR E-learning facilities. Sustainability, 12(14), 5872. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145872.

Buehl, D. (2023). Classroom Strategies for Interactive Learning (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032680842.

Bui, N.-B.-T. (2023). Interactive whiteboards in primary schools: A Vietnamese language arts classroom Awith a quasi-experimental study. Asia Pacific Education Review, 24(4), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09860-2.

Cevikbas, M., Bulut, N., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Exploring the benefits and drawbacks of AR and VR technologies for learners of mathematics: Recent developments. Systems, 11(5), 244. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11050244.

Chang, T.-W., Kinshuk, Yu, P.-T., & Hsu, J.-M. (2011). Investigations of using interactive whiteboards with and without an additional screen. 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 347–349. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2011.108.

Chebotib, N., Too, J., & Ongeti, K. (2022). Effects of the flipped learning approach on students’ academic achievement in secondary schools in Kenya. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 12(6), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-1206030110.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed). L. Erlbaum Associates.

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.

Dashtestani, S. R. (2019). Teaching EFL with Interactive Whiteboards: Do the Benefits Outweigh the Drawbacks? Language Horizons, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.22051/lghor.2019.26689.1139.

Divya, V. (2023). Utilization of interactive whiteboard for teaching biological science. In Education 5.0: Revolutionizing learning for the future. Utilization of Interactive Whiteboard for Teaching. https://e-iji.net/ats/index.php/pub/article/view/704.

Dunn, T. J., & Kennedy, M. (2019). Technology enhanced learning in higher education; motivations, engagement and academic achievement. Computers & Education, 137, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.004.

Freina, L., & Ott, M. (2015, April). A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspectives. In The international scientific conference elearning and software for education, 1(133), 10-1007. https://doi.org/10.12753/2066-026X-15-020.

Guzey, S. S., & Li, W. (2022). Engagement and science achievement in the context of integrated STEM education: A longitudinal study. Journal of Science Education and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10023-y.

Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review. Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004.

Hmoud, M., Swaity, H., Karram, O., Shibli, H., Swaity, S., & Daher, W. (2023). High school students’ engagement in biology in the context of XR technology. IEEE Access, 11, 137053–137066. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3338176.

Huang, W., Roscoe, R. D., Johnson‐Glenberg, M. C., & Craig, S. D. (2021). Motivation, engagement, and performance across multiple virtual reality sessions and levels of immersion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(3), 745–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12520.

Islami, M. R. A., Zafari, M., & Anjum, S. (2025). Wearable energy harvester: Application of piezoelectric sensors in shoes as a portable power source. Integrated Science Education Journal, 6(3), 249-257. https://doi.org/10.37251/isej.v6i3.2117.

Jackson, M. M., & Alfaki, A. A. O. (2025). Advancing sustainable development goal 6: Innovations, challenges, and pathways for clean water and sanitation. Integrated Science Education Journal, 6(3), 224-231. https://doi.org/10.37251/isej.v6i3.2114.

Kilic, E., Güler, Ç., Çelik, H. E., & Tatli, C. (2015). Learning with interactive whiteboards: Determining the factors on promoting interactive whiteboards to students by Technology Acceptance Model. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 12(4), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITSE-05-2015-0011.

Kim, H.-Y., & Kim, E.-Y. (2023). Effects of medical education program using virtual reality: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(5), 3895. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20053895.

Kim, M. H. (2021). Effects of collaborative learning in a virtual environment on students’ academic achievement and satisfaction. Journal of Digital Convergence, 19(4), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2021.19.4.001.

Kuhl, T., & Wohninsland, P. (2022). Learning with the interactive whiteboard in the classroom: Its impact on vocabulary acquisition, motivation and the role of foreign language anxiety. Education and Information Technologies, 27(7), 10387–10404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11004-9.

Lampropoulos, G., Keramopoulos, E., Diamantaras, K., & Evangelidis, G. (2022). Augmented reality and virtual reality in education: Public perspectives, sentiments, attitudes, and discourses. Education Sciences, 12(11), 798. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110798.

Le, N. N., & Aye, M. Z. (2025). The effect of integrating green sustainable science and technology into STEM learning on students’ environmental literacy. Integrated Science Education Journal, 6(3), 232-239. https://doi.org/10.37251/isej.v6i3.2116.

Lege, R., & Bonner, E. (2020). Virtual reality in education: The promise, progress, and challenge. The JALT CALL Journal, 16(3), 167–180. https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v16n3.388.

Lei, H., Cui, Y., & Zhou, W. (2018). Relationships between student engagement and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 46(3), 517–528. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7054.

Linh, T. T. T., Huong, T. T. M., & Thammachot, N. (2025). Sustainable nutrient management for NFT hydroponic lettuce: Integrating kipahit (Tithonia diversifolia) liquid organic fertilizer with AB-Mix. Integrated Science Education Journal, 6(3), 240-248. https://doi.org/10.37251/isej.v6i3.2118.

Liu, J., Hu, J., & Furutan, O. (2013). The influence of student perceived professors’ “hotness” on expertise, motivation, learning outcomes, and course satisfaction. Journal of Education for Business, 88(2), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.652695.

Low, D. Y. S., Poh, P. E., & Tang, S. Y. (2022). Assessing the impact of augmented reality application on students’ learning motivation in chemical engineering. Education for Chemical Engineers, 39, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2022.02.004.

Macchi, G., & De Pisapia, N. (2024). Virtual reality, face-to-face, and 2D video conferencing differently impact fatigue, creativity, flow, and decision-making in workplace dynamics. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 10260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60942-6.

Marougkas, A., Troussas, C., Krouska, A., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2023). Virtual reality in education: A review of learning theories, approaches and methodologies for the last decade. Electronics, 12(13), 2832. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12132832.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments: Special issue on interactive learning environments: Contemporary issues and trends. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9047-2.

Neiroukh, N., & Ayyoub, A. (2025). Impact of virtual reality immersion in biology classes on habits of mind of east jerusalem municipality high school students: Examining mediating roles of self-regulation, flow experience, and motivation. Education Sciences, 15(8), 955. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15080955.

Niederhauser, D. S. (2013). Learning from technology or learning with technology: Theoretical perspectives on the nature of using technology in the classroom. In The Nature of Technology, 249–267. https://brill.com/display/book/9789462092693/BP000015.xml.

Nurhayat, R., Suranto, S., Dwiningrum, S. I. A., Retnawati, H., & Herwin, H. (2023). The effect of innovative learning on student achievement in Indonesia: A Meta-Analysis. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 13(3), 159–167. EJ1387701.pdf

Ozkan Bekiroglu, S., Ramsay, C. M., & Robert, J. (2022). Movement and engagement in flexible, technology-enhanced classrooms: Investigating cognitive and emotional engagement from the faculty perspective. Learning Environments Research, 25(2), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-021-09363-0.

Park, B., Plass, J. L., & Brünken, R. (2014). Cognitive and affective processes in multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 29, 125–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.005.

Ragan, E. D., Sowndararajan, A., Kopper, R., & Bowman, D. A. (2010). The effects of higher levels of immersion on procedure memorization performance and implications for educational virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 19(6), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.1162/pres_a_00016.

Rahajo, M. S., & Kumyat, A. (2025). Analysis of driving factors for the implementation of clean technology to optimize green manufacturing in the wiradesa batik small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Integrated Science Education Journal, 6(3), 258-268. https://doi.org/10.37251/isej.v6i3.2115.

Richardson, L. D. (2023). The effects of interactive mini-lessons on students’ educational experience. Research in Learning Technology, 31. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v31.2900.

Rojas-Sánchez, M. A., Palos-Sánchez, P. R., & Folgado-Fernández, J. A. (2023). Systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis on virtual reality and education. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 155–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11167-5.

Saqr, M., López-Pernas, S., Helske, S., & Hrastinski, S. (2023). The longitudinal association between engagement and achievement varies by time, students’ profiles, and achievement state: A full program study. Computers & Education, 199, 104787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104787.

Sarıoğlu, S. & Girgin, S. (2020). The effect of using virtual reality in 6th grade science course the cell topic on students’ academic achievements and attitudes towards the course. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 17(1), 109–125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36681/.

Schut, C. (2007). Student Perceptions of Interactive Whiteboards in a Biology Classroom. Cedarville University. https://doi.org/10.15385/tmed.2007.3.

Shaikh, R. R., G, N., & Gupta, A. (2023). Investigating the role of shared screen in a computer-supported classroom in learning. Education and Information Technologies, 28(8), 10507–10554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11567-7.

Shen, C., Ho, J., Ly, P. T. M., & Kuo, T. (2019). Behavioural intentions of using virtual reality in learning: Perspectives of acceptance of information technology and learning style. Virtual Reality, 23(3), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-018-0348-1.

Shi, Y., Zhang, J., Yang, H., & Yang, H. H. (2021). Effects of Interactive Whiteboard-based Instruction on Students’ Cognitive Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(2), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1769683.

Sırakaya, M., & Alsancak Sırakaya, D. (2022). Augmented reality in STEM education: A systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(8), 1556–1569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1722713.

Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size or why the p value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1.

Swan, S., Kratcoski, A., & Schenker, J. (2010). Interactive whiteboards and student achievement. Interactive whiteboards for education: Theory, research and practice (No. Van‘t Hooft, M.). https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-715-2.ch009.

Tanti, T., Darmaji, D., Astalini, A., Kurniawan, D. A., & Iqbal, M. (2021). Analysis of user responses to the application of web-based assessment on character assessment. Journal of education technology, 5(3), 356-364. https://doi.org/10.23887/jet.v5i3.33590.

Tanti, T., Astalini, A., Kurniawan, D. A., Darmaji, D., Puspitasari, T. O., & Wardhana, I. (2021). Attitude for physics: The condition of high school students. Jurnal Pendidikan Fisika Indonesia, 17(2), 126-132. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpfi.v17i2.18919.

Tanti, T., Utami, W., Deliza, D., & Jahanifar, M. (2025) Investigation in vocation high school for attitude and motivation students in learning physics subject, Journal Evaluation in Education (JEE), 6(2). 479-490, https://doi.org/10.37251/jee.v6i2.1452.

Tanti, T., Anwar, K., Jamaluddin, J., Saleh, A. S., Yusup, D. K., & Jahanifar, M. (2025). Faith meets technology: Navigating student satisfaction in Indonesia’s Islamic higher education online learning. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, 9(2), 695-708. https://doi.org/10.22437/jiituj.v9i2.41513.

Uriarte-Portillo, A., Ibáñez, M.-B., Zataraín-Cabada, R., & Barrón-Estrada, M.-L. (2022). Higher Immersive Profiles Improve Learning Outcomes in Augmented Reality Learning Environments. Information, 13(5), 218. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13050218.

Villena-Taranilla, R., Tirado-Olivares, S., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2022). Effects of virtual reality on learning outcomes in K-6 education: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 35, 100434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100434.

Yang, K.-T., & Wang, T.-H. (2012). Interactive WhiteBoard: Effective interactive teaching strategy designs for biology teaching. In S. Kofuji (Ed.), E-Learning—Engineering, On-Job Training and Interactive Teaching. InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/31252.

Yang, R., Zhou, C., Huang, M., Wen, H., & Liang, H.-N. (2021). Design of an interactive classroom with bullet screen function in university teaching. 2021 9th International Conference on Information and Education Technology (ICIET), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIET51873.2021.9419627.